SWITZERLAND - 2007 Country Report on Islamisation

Although Switzerland (CH) is not a member of the European Union, it is no doubt part of the Eurabia frame and an active benefactor to the Euromed expression of it. This is the case either directly or more discretely through the EALE Treaty. For instance the free trade program with “Palestinian Authoritiy” is managed by such AELE treaty.

It is also well known that CH holds a very critical amount of muslim assets within its private banking network. Finally, CH has historical links with some root movement of salafism, namely the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) who opened its first most influential embassy in Geneva, “centre islamique de Genève”with Saïd Ramadan, father of Tariq. This has been helped by a very efficient network headed by people like the swiss nazi banker François Genoud helped by people like Ahmed Huber the son of whom, Amr, being the head for the internet service of the Swiss government.

It is therefore not by chance that the former president of the Swiss Confederation Micheline Calmy-Rey, was the first to protest officially when Tariq Ramadan’s visa to the US has been refused. It is no secret that the Swiss foreign ministry is bound by duty to help the Arabic cause in general and the Palestinian one in particular.

Swiss politician are not less fully bound by their dependency to the Islamic finance and political Eurabian ties, than any other European country. But on the other hand, CH is the only country in Europe where the semi-direct democracy is still in effect. That is to say, the right of citizens outside the legislature to originate legislation thanks to petition.

This means that the people of Switzerland have the right to impose the discussion of a bill based on the collection of a certain amount of signatures pertaining to the relevant petition process.

This is how CH is nothing but the only country in the world trying to ban the minaret at the constitution level…

So, from legislative point of view, CH might be one of the most promising laboratories to counteract the spread of islam in Europe, if the initiatives are intelligently performed and if any adverse effect is well and enough anticipated. Some orientation could be based on the principle of precaution or precautionary principle. The idea is very simple. When terrorism can be considered as a danger, islam should be considered as a risk to generate such a danger. When this is postulated as such, the immediate reaction of the supporters of islam is well known: islamophobia and the sort.

Here we will try to anticipate this kind of reaction. How? By assuming that islam might be ok from a responsible secular point of view, which doesn’t mean that people who spreading any risk should be treated with any diplomatic immunity.

It is a fact that 90% of the armed conflicts and terror attacks in the world are claimed in the name of islam. To the question whether or not this is based on the right interpretation is irrelevant for a state that is supposed to keep itself outside of such religious consideration, strictly speaking. Such a system has no velleity to judge any religion as the religion would do it under its own standards. But the democratic state has also the obligation 1) to secure the daily life of its citizens and inhabitants 2) to secure its own perennation. Any attack against this second aspect is nothing but subversion.

On the first aspect, the state is fully entitled to diagnose any kind of “side effects” as a result of Islamic preaching. This is not judging the religion but its effects on the system.

On the one hand it is clear that many assumptions of the Islamic doctrine can be understood as compulsory prescriptions. Quite a number of them are directly infringing the criminal and civil code if put into practice. They can therefore be legally understood as a cause of action, from a legal point of view.

On the other hand the claims of Islamic perpetrators are said by them to be the very implementation of the previous prescriptions. That can be called an effect from a legal point of view.

What is missing to prosecute the causal side is the link between the cause and effect.

A mere discourse, which is nothing but the mere expression of an opinion cannot be incriminated as an instigation, thanks to the freedom of speech and opinion. Only a person who is in a position to order specific orientations to specific people, resulting in a specific effect can be legally prosecuted. This is why it is generally impossible to prosecute an imam simply reading, commenting or spreading the legal prescription even to fight the non-muslims system and persons.

Therefore the solution lays in a legal approach that can overcome the absence of any link between the cause and effect.

This is where the precautionary principle can be most useful. It is based on the theory of risk instead of tort.

It has been set up to face the difficulties of assessing the cause and effect link when science doesn’t have enough “back focus” to ascertain such a link. It refers to situations creating a risk for environment or health safety, and creates the duty of the one who generates the risk to take all due precaution in order to avoid it as much as he can or to suffer the consequences of the side effects, even if no link with the cause can be proved.

To make it legally possible, the precautionary principle prescribes a shift in the burden of proof on the shoulder of the one who has created the risk. He will have to prove that is has taken enough and adequate precaution pertaining to the risk he has created.

Risk-generators are considered as responsible people, responsible citizens. They can innovate, no doubt; but they take their direct and full share liability in case of a catastrophe. And they have to pay even in advance for that.

This is altogether one of the main grounds for what is called sustainable development. For us the question could be: What about sustainable democracy

based on the precautionary principle as well?

In our case, the solution would be to extend the precautionary principle from environment and health safety to the safety of democracy.

If a doctrine is aimed at propagating the negation of democracy by subversive means as well as criminal ones, this could be considered as the creation of a risk per se, couldn’t it? The accumulation of Islamic capital punishments in the news is enough to conclude: yes.

The solution would then to offer a deal to the disseminators of islam, preachers or even mere publishers, that we could formulate to the said disseminators as follows:

“- Islam, as a legal doctrine, which can be understood as compulsory in many of its prescriptions, not only as a parallel system to the rule of law, but as one superior to it, creates a risk of side effects through criminal acts and subversion.

- In order to prevent such a risk, your duty is to neutralize such mandatory effect by stipulating officially, that although given to the knowledge of the followers for religious purpose, those prescriptions stand below the rule of law and should never be followed when contradicting it. If you do so, you will be officially recognized as a reliable citizen and even helped an subsidized.

- If you don’t, based on the freedom to practice your religion freely, you won’t be banned to continue to propagate such a doctrine but you will have to bare the full responsibility for any side effect and to contribute to a special fund (like the oil companies) set up to finance any damages caused as a result of those side effects or meant to prevent them. The burden of proof will be reversed and it will be your liability to prove that based on the due steps you have taken, this could never happened from your activity, speech or mere influence.”

In a nutshell: you neutralize the risk by warning about the illegality of prescriptions that can be easily listed or you will bare the corresponding liability and become taxable.

This kind of law is hardly imaginable in Eurabia, except in Switzerland, thanks to the people’s right of initiative.

This is what we will try to implement.

Appendix

The following data are extracted from a report published by the GRIS (group of research on islam in Switzerland).

Interestingly this group is composed of former students of Tariq Ramadan, some of which have been educated in the nest of the too famous Islamic foundation in Leicester and claims a partnership with such foundation. Going through their analysis, one finds nothing but good reason to propagate islam more and more, all this under the appearance of “scientific work”. Nevertheless, their raw data are available and may give rise, of course, to a totally opposite analysis as a matter of its consequences for freedom and democracy.

1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Immigration Waves

Prior to 1960, the presence of Muslims within the Swiss population was rare (less than 20’000).

A vast wave of immigration started in the late 1970’s after Switzerland changed its legislation concerning foreigners to allow family regrouping. This decision is fully synchronized with the rest of Europe just following the Oil crisis and the eurabian blackmail.

Based on the census of the year 2000, the total Swiss population numbers 7,288,010. Of this number, 310,807 are Muslims, meaning Muslims represent 4.3% of the total population of Switzerland. An element that is important and interesting to note is that of the 310,807 Muslims in Switzerland, only 36,481 have Swiss nationality, having been born Swiss nationals and/or converting to Islam (approximately one-half of the 36,481) or having gone through the process of naturalization to become Swiss citizens. Of course this census is old enough to assess the muslim population at more than 400’000 in 2007.

Of the overall number of Muslims in Switzerland, there are a majority of ex-Yugoslavians

Former Yugoslavia, comprising Kosovo 108,058

Bosnia Herzegovina 23,457

Macedonia 43,365

Croatia 392

Slovenia 102

followed by Turks and Albanians:

Turkey 62,698

Albania 699

And finally, we find the North African and Middle Eastern immigrants:

Morocco 4,364

Tunisia 3,318

Algeria 2,654

Egypt 865

Libya 489

Iraq 3,171

Lebanon 1,277

Syria 459

The fact that statistics reveal the presence of 169,726 Muslim men compared to

141,081 Muslim women demonstrates that the Muslim presence has evolved and
is no longer merely due to a working immigration.

is no longer merely due to a working immigration.
Statistics also show that the Muslim population in Switzerland is rejuvenating.
This is another indication that the Muslim community is settling in the country.
With all nationalities combined, there are

Less than15 years old 77'322

Between 15 and 24 59'867

Between 25 and 34 59'932

Between 35 and 44 46'125

Between 45 and 54 28'675

Between 55 and 64 7'057

Between 65 and 74 3'165

More than 75 1'231

2 RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES

As a federation of states, all matters of religion fall under the competence of the cantons within the limits of federal (constitutional) law. The only two cantons that have clearly separated the state and religion are Geneva and Neuchâtel. Wallis is the most expressive canton showing adverse opinion against islam For instance, in 2003) an imam from Macedonia was denied a work permit (to work as an imam in Switzerland) based in large part on the fact that the imam had studied in Medina (Saudi Arabia); the cantonal authorities considered the imam a potential threat to religious peace.

Islam and Law in Switzerland

No Swiss laws forbid Muslims from exercising their religious beliefs or practices.

Education in schools

The question of religious studies falls under the competence of the cantons. To date, in the canton of Lucerne, two communes decided to introduce Islamic religious classes for their Muslim pupils in fall 2002. This class is given in German language to all nationalities together and is optional. After a difficult start largely diffused through the media, this decision has now been accepted.

Political Participation

To date, no Islamic or Muslim political parties exist in Switzerland. Only a few Swiss Muslims are involved politically and the few Muslims elected to office have not made Islam their battle.

Since a couple of years, some canton (Vaud and Zurich) have decided to modernize the relations between state and church and the recognition of new confessional communities. This project intended to give some religious communities an official status that would allow them to perceive religious taxes and organize religious teachings. In Zurich the UDC party, opposed to this project, directed its entire campaign against Islam, underlying that violence was a daily fact in Muslim countries, and arguing that the confrontation of Islam with other religious communities had always led to violence. The UDC also publicly claimed that the shari’a (Islamic law) is a threat for the lawful state of Zurich.

The UDC’s campaign was a success and lead to the refusal of the project. In vaud, the new cantonal constitution imposes a formal recognition of secular rule law supremacy as a prerequisite of any recognition process for the “new religions”, among which islam.

Number of mosques and prayer halls

Switzerland has registered around 130 to 150 mosques and/or prayers hall.

Islamic Schools

Numbers of Islamic schools projects are in due process of completion in Switzerland. One of them, near Lausanne, is financed by the Rabita.

October 18, 2007

 
 

Comments